Morality without God?

[Jay_7]

This kinda has to do with this topic, especially the purple box at the bottom, i found it funny

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Remember that the Japanese don't beleive in a God. Yet their society seems to avoid plunging into social chaos.

Which is to be expected. Just because they don't believe in God doesn't mean they don't believe in God. What I mean is, just because they don't believe in God, doesn't mean they don't contradict that belief and believe that some things are objectively wrong, and some things are objectively wrong.

You only find it contradictory because you cannot separate objective morality from God. I doubt many Japanese are contemplating this proposed contradiction or are even aware of it.

I see you prefer rationalization over actually conceding a point or even considering you may have to rethink your position.

Which is to be expected. Just because they don't believe in God doesn't mean they don't believe in God.

[Mystical]

Found an article delineating the Christian view on this issue:

Morality Apart From God: Is It Possible?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

You only find it contradictory because you cannot separate objective morality from God. I doubt many Japanese are contemplating this proposed contradiction or are even aware of it.

I see you prefer rationalization over actually conceding a point or even considering you may have to rethink your position.

I find it hypocritical that you tell me to back down when you think I've lost. Especially when I haven't. And it's true, you cannot separate objective morality from God. Find me somewhere else you can root it without running into moral relativism. I didn't just randomly rationalize this point. I had this view already. I just didn't put it down as it was not necessary at the time. Maybe I even thought I'd keep it in reserve to whack you over the head with.

[Jay_7]

People say we can have morality without God because of our different views, but, we all want to be treated nicely, and live in peace, where does this come from? good souls. The badness in the devil, and the morality comes from our soul, if our souls bad, we act bad etc.

Thats my view anyway. How can goodness and badness be created by gases and the big bang and all that? It couldnt

[BGoodForGoodSake]

You only find it contradictory because you cannot separate objective morality from God. I doubt many Japanese are contemplating this proposed contradiction or are even aware of it.

I see you prefer rationalization over actually conceding a point or even considering you may have to rethink your position.

I find it hypocritical that you tell me to back down when you think I've lost. Especially when I haven't. And it's true, you cannot separate objective morality from God. Find me somewhere else you can root it without running into moral relativism. I didn't just randomly rationalize this point. I had this view already. I just didn't put it down as it was not necessary at the time. Maybe I even thought I'd keep it in reserve to whack you over the head with.

Stick to the point then, how do you explain the morality of cultures which do not beleive in God.
And what if it is rooted in moral relativism?

Are you saying that the only way morality can exist is if it exist as absolute laws? Or are absolutes constructs something that help one make sense of life?

Why are laws so different from culture to culture?

[Kurieuo]

May sound like a strange question, but is raping someone ever a good thing? If full-blown moral relativism is true, then raping someone isn't really good nor bad. Rather "good" and "bad" are just lingual constructions we make which are essentially meaningless and don't really exist. What is good and bad if to each person they mean something different? Yet, if someone's being raped is really wrong, as I'm sure any morally capable person would believe, then this wrongness has to be objectively based upon some real moral standard for it to be binding as really wrong.

Theism provides such foundations, as Christians believe this moral standard is rooted in God's nature. Atheism has no such standard beyond humanity in which to ground morality. Therefore rape could be very good for one person or group, while rape is wrong for another. "Good" and "bad" here don't really really exist, since it isn't always true that rape is bad, nor child molestation, nor genecide, nor racism, nor anything. Disagree with this in any way to think there is something that is really wrong for everyone no matter who does it, then morals require some absolute standard in which your beliefs can be grounded as meaningful.

Kurieuo

[BGoodForGoodSake]

May sound like a strange question, but is raping someone ever a good thing? If full-blown moral relativism is true, then raping someone isn't really good nor bad. Rather "good" and "bad" are just lingual constructions we make which are essentially meaningless and don't really exist. What is good and bad if to each person they mean something different? Yet, if someone's being raped is really wrong, as I'm sure any morally capable person would believe, then this wrongness has to be objectively based upon some real moral standard for it to be binding as really wrong.

Theism provides such foundations, as Christians believe this moral standard is rooted in God's nature. Atheism has no such standard beyond humanity in which to ground morality. Therefore rape could be very good for one person or group, while rape is wrong for another. "Good" and "bad" here don't really really exist, since it isn't always true that rape is bad, nor child molestation, nor genecide, nor racism, nor anything. Disagree with this in any way to think there is something that is really wrong for everyone no matter who does it, then morals require some absolute standard in which your beliefs can be grounded as meaningful.

Kurieuo

You are going from one extreme to another.

Either moral laws exist absolutely or they are meaningless.

There is another possibility.
This is that morality is required to be absolute within a culture in order to maintain society.
All societies operate in basically the same way so morality in each of these cultures should have similar frameworks or at least function the same way in terms of effect on society.
A society must actively reinforce these absolute ideals in order to keep society in control.
However there is room for variation between cultures.

This would allow for the observed variations in moral viewpoints throughtout various societies in the world.

Also, morality is not a random permutation, it has limitations. Moral foundation is necessary for societies to function and therefore must meet this need be it a Pagan, Monothiestic, Animalistic, or Communist community, etc..

Rape is a violation of another person, I am absolutely certain that it is seen as wrong in most societies. Because of the basic tenant of societal need as stated above. Rape is sure to be a destabilizing event.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Stick to the point then, how do you explain the morality of cultures which do not beleive in God.

People are made in the image of God. So despite the fact that man is fallen, he still retains some of what he originally had-one being the (now partial) knowledge of right and wrong-and the belief that they are universal-therefore applying to everyone.

And what if it is rooted in moral relativism?

Then what's right for you is only right for you unless it's also right for another person. For example, so what if you think murder is wrong-it's only wrong to another person if they think it's wrong too. So, with moral relativism, right and wrong do not transcend the individual-but, they obviously do when you say what someone does is wrong, or someone is jailed for their actions, etc...

Are you saying that the only way morality can exist is if it exist as absolute laws? Or are absolutes constructs something that help one make sense of life?

Well, in a sense, yes. Moral relativism doesn't even constitute a moral system. I mean, believing in moral relativism and having no morals give you the same result-a sociopath.

Why are laws so different from culture to culture?

Are they really? Is it a difference of opinion on what is right and wrong, or is it a difference of perspective? Second, no equivocating. Everyone not knowing perfectly what is right and wrong is does not mean they do not exist. That is nonsense.

[Kurieuo]

May sound like a strange question, but is raping someone ever a good thing? If full-blown moral relativism is true, then raping someone isn't really good nor bad. Rather "good" and "bad" are just lingual constructions we make which are essentially meaningless and don't really exist. What is good and bad if to each person they mean something different? Yet, if someone's being raped is really wrong, as I'm sure any morally capable person would believe, then this wrongness has to be objectively based upon some real moral standard for it to be binding as really wrong.

Theism provides such foundations, as Christians believe this moral standard is rooted in God's nature. Atheism has no such standard beyond humanity in which to ground morality. Therefore rape could be very good for one person or group, while rape is wrong for another. "Good" and "bad" here don't really really exist, since it isn't always true that rape is bad, nor child molestation, nor genecide, nor racism, nor anything. Disagree with this in any way to think there is something that is really wrong for everyone no matter who does it, then morals require some absolute standard in which your beliefs can be grounded as meaningful.

Kurieuo

You are going from one extreme to another.

Either moral laws exist absolutely or they are meaningless.

There is another possibility.
This is that morality is required to be absolute within a culture in order to maintain society.

One extreme to the other? I think I'm telling it like it is. What gives meaning to "right" and "wrong"? You would essentially take these terms to designate what society says it finds tasteful and distasteful? Sure, this provides some meaning, but not in the true sense we use them.

For example, if right and wrong are moral constructs then the moral reformer Martin Luther King was extremely immoral in his time. Or what Saddam did by unnecessarily killing thousands of people is alright since they were carried out under his regime, and therefore his complaints of not being held accountable to a judicial system setup by the US would be justified if right and wrong are only meaningful within cultures. Or to take up Hitler, he was really not immoral in any way but perfectly moral. This reason was infused into the defense the Nazis presented at Nuremberg. Putting forward the notion called legal positivism, they claimed that the International Military Tribunal had no moral legitimacy to preside over the trials.

Montgomery describes their argument: "The most telling defense offered by the accused was that they had simply followed orders or made decisions within the framework of their own legal system, in complete consistency with it, and that they therefore ought not right be condemned because they deviated from the alien value system of their conquerers" (John Warwick Montgomery, The Law above the Law). But Robert Jackson, chief counsel for the US at the trials said that the tribunal "rises above the provincial and transient and seeks guidence not only from International Law, but also from the basic principles of jurisprudence which are assumptions of civilization..." Surely any moral person could see there is a moral fabric that is true regardless of a societies beliefs or trends? Performing surgical experiements on live humans, sowing two people together alive, and so forth is just plain wrong. To say it is just wrong for one to society, but could be really good for the next, is to rip out meaningfulness to "wrong" and "right".

Now if relativistic ideas of morals are right as you believe or here put forward, then no other society has any right to judge another society. No other society has any right to accuse someone in another society with different values as being immoral! If you are still going to say that morality is bound by culture or society, then there is no way you are able to judge another society. If you say what Hitler did was morally wrong, or what the likes of Dr. Mengele did is wrong, that is meaningless to me if I say morality is only bound by culture. For example, there is no way Nazi war criminals could be punished unless one society placed their moral laws above that of another. But Robert Jackson's words above do not make sense unless one appeals to some objective standard. If morals are only relative, then the war criminals should have been declared innocent of any crime! To say morals are relative from one society to the next, and then to say certain happenings such as nazi war crimes are wrong, is just nonsensical. For one would be talking about different moral systems, and there is nothing that provides one side with a priviledged position of calling them wrong unless it is affirmed some objective moral fabric exists which all are bound to.

All societies operate in basically the same way so morality in each of these cultures should have similar frameworks or at least function the same way in terms of effect on society.

Perhaps this similarness is based upon an objective moral knowledge just about all seem to have?

Rape is a violation of another person, I am absolutely certain that it is seen as wrong in most societies. Because of the basic tenant of societal need as stated above. Rape is sure to be a destabilizing event.

What makes rape a violation? Such assume all persons have the right not to be raped, but is this possible given such may your belief but not anothers? Now on the atheistic view, rape may not be socially advantageous and so it has become taboo in the course of human development. However, this does nothing to show that rape really is wrong...

I see no reason to deny objective moral values do exist given we deep down feel and act as though they do. I am only being consistent with myself when I adopt this belief, for I see actions like rape, torture, and child abuse aren't just socially unacceptable behavior but moral abominations. I believe and live as though some things are really wrong, while other things such as love, equality, and self—sacrifice are really good. Therefore I think I would be extremely dishonest in then turning around a say that such things are really based on one society to the next.

Kurieuo

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Montgomery describes their argument: "The most telling defense offered by the accused was that they had simply followed orders or made decisions within the framework of their own legal system, in complete consistency with it, and that they therefore ought not right be condemned because they deviated from the alien value system of their conquerers" (John Warwick Montgomery, The Law above the Law). But Robert Jackson, chief counsel for the US at the trials said that the tribunal "rises above the provincial and transient and seeks guidence not only from International Law, but also from the basic principles of jurisprudence which are assumptions of civilization..." Surely any moral person could see there is a moral fabric that is true regardless of a societies beliefs or trends? Performing surgical experiements on live humans, sowing two people together alive, and so forth is just plain wrong. To say it is just wrong for one to society, but could be really good for the next, is to rip out meaningfulness to "wrong" and "right".

We have the same book I believe...

Rape is a violation of another person, I am absolutely certain that it is seen as wrong in most societies. Because of the basic tenant of societal need as stated above. Rape is sure to be a destabilizing event.

But who says violating another person is wrong though? You are assuming the existence of objective morals to make up a moral system to get by without them.

This would allow for the observed variations in moral viewpoints throughtout various societies in the world.

What variations in moral viewpoints?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

One extreme to the other? I think I'm telling it like it is. What gives meaning to "right" and "wrong"? You would essentially take these terms to designate what society says it finds tasteful and distasteful? Sure, this provides some meaning, but not in the true sense we use them.

Given the funtion morals take within a society It must be absolute. And because of this absoluteness we feel that moral values must be universal, but perhaps they are not.

For example, if right and wrong are moral constructs then the moral reformer Martin Luther King was extremely immoral in his time.

If morality is based on social construct then you need to first devise one in which this would be seen a amoral. If those of african desent are seen as sub-human than this could be the case. Right and wrong themselves are part of the human psyche, it is what is defined as right and wrong which may be variable to a point.

Or what Saddam did by unnecessarily killing thousands of people is alright since they were carried out under his regime, and therefore his complaints of not being held accountable to a judicial system setup by the US would be justified if right and wrong are only meaningful within cultures.

Whatever justifications he may have had during his reign no longer apply with the current state of affairs.

Or to take up Hitler, he was really not immoral in any way but perfectly moral. This reason was infused into the defense the Nazis presented at Nuremberg. Putting forward the notion called legal positivism, they claimed that the International Military Tribunal had no moral legitimacy to preside over the trials.

The same applies here.

Montgomery describes their argument: "The most telling defense offered by the accused was that they had simply followed orders or made decisions within the framework of their own legal system, in complete consistency with it, and that they therefore ought not right be condemned because they deviated from the alien value system of their conquerers" (John Warwick Montgomery, The Law above the Law). But Robert Jackson, chief counsel for the US at the trials said that the tribunal "rises above the provincial and transient and seeks guidence not only from International Law, but also from the basic principles of jurisprudence which are assumptions of civilization..." Surely any moral person could see there is a moral fabric that is true regardless of a societies beliefs or trends? Performing surgical experiements on live humans, sowing two people together alive, and so forth is just plain wrong. To say it is just wrong for one to society, but could be really good for the next, is to rip out meaningfulness to "wrong" and "right".

As I stated earlier, the very function that morals have in a society may be the reason why moral constructs are required to be absolute within a society.

Now if relativistic ideas of morals are right as you believe or here put forward, then no other society has any right to judge another society.

When societies come into contact with another this issue will arise. This is something which humanity has struggled with throughout history.

No other society has any right to accuse someone in another society with different values as being immoral!

Because moral constructs are required to be absolute within a society it is difficult to interact with other societies with different standards without labeling them amoral.

If you are still going to say that morality is bound by culture or society, then there is no way you are able to judge another society.

In order for the two societies to peacefully co-exist an agreement is necessary.

If you say what Hitler did was morally wrong, or what the likes of Dr. Mengele did is wrong, that is meaningless to me if I say morality is only bound by culture.

Not if the culture which promoted Hitler's actions are no longer in existance.

For example, there is no way Nazi war criminals could be punished unless one society placed their moral laws above that of another.

If the Nazi's had won you would have a point, however they lost and are subject to the judgement of the victors.

But Robert Jackson's words above do not make sense unless one appeals to some objective standard. If morals are only relative, then the war criminals should have been declared innocent of any crime! To say morals are relative from one society to the next, and then to say certain happenings such as nazi war crimes are wrong, is just nonsensical.

Moral constructs are absolute within a culture. Germany after the war is now subject to the moral standards of the victor.

For one would be talking about different moral systems, and there is nothing that provides one side with a priviledged position of calling them wrong unless it is affirmed some objective moral fabric exists which all are bound to.

Apparently winning the war afforded the west the right to apply their moral standards on Nazi germany

All societies operate in basically the same way so morality in each of these cultures should have similar frameworks or at least function the same way in terms of effect on society.

Perhaps this similarness is based upon an objective moral knowledge just about all seem to have?

Similar is not the same as identical, I will reiterate since all humanity lives in societies the moral framework under which these societies live by must serve the function of keeping the society together. Therefore it is likely that similarities will occur given that human beings are the same everywhere.

Rape is a violation of another person, I am absolutely certain that it is seen as wrong in most societies. Because of the basic tenant of societal need as stated above. Rape is sure to be a destabilizing event.

What makes rape a violation?

The fact that you are taking something from an individual who belongs to a family or a tribe. She is someone's daughter, someone's mother.

Such assume all persons have the right not to be raped, but is this possible given such may your belief but not anothers?

Again moral constructs are not random occurences, there are basic guidelines which they must follow given their function in society.

Now on the atheistic view, rape may not be socially advantageous and so it has become taboo in the course of human development.

How can it be socially advantageous, it would most likely lead to stigmatism and at worse the offendor is subject to the wrath of the relatives of the victim. Human beings are not automatons who just allow others to do what they want.

However, this does nothing to show that rape really is wrong...
I see no reason to deny objective moral values do exist given we deep down feel and act as though they do. I am only being consistent with myself when I adopt this belief, for I see actions like rape, torture, and child abuse aren't just socially unacceptable behavior but moral abominations. I believe and live as though some things are really wrong, while other things such as love, equality, and self—sacrifice are really good. Therefore I think I would be extremely dishonest in then turning around a say that such things are really based on one society to the next.

Perhaps you need to research outside of your own experiences.

[Kurieuo]

First I see you've dodged a whole lot rather than tackled it. I'm not sure why, for I see that you would agree in embracing a lot of the same moral values I do. In any case I only have a couple of remarks back.

But Robert Jackson's words above do not make sense unless one appeals to some objective standard. If morals are only relative, then the war criminals should have been declared innocent of any crime! To say morals are relative from one society to the next, and then to say certain happenings such as nazi war crimes are wrong, is just nonsensical.

Moral constructs are absolute within a culture. Germany after the war is now subject to the moral standards of the victor.

If the victor dicates "right" and "wrong," then this fits my point that "right" and "right" is intrinsically meaningless on a relativistic position.

Rape is a violation of another person, I am absolutely certain that it is seen as wrong in most societies. Because of the basic tenant of societal need as stated above. Rape is sure to be a destabilizing event.

What makes rape a violation?

The fact that you are taking something from an individual who belongs to a family or a tribe. She is someone's daughter, someone's mother.

For rape to be a violation one must already believe it to be wrong. Yet, you are advancing a position that right and wrong (including the wrongness of rape) is only a violation for you and others like you, and not necessarily everyone. So to make the declaration that "Rape is a violation of another person," is to be inconsistent since such is a universal statement about the wrongness of rape. I would encourage you to go with this approach though—that rape is a violation for everyone no matter who they are or what they believe.

Now on the atheistic view, rape may not be socially advantageous and so it has become taboo in the course of human development.

How can it be socially advantageous, it would most likely lead to stigmatism and at worse the offendor is subject to the wrath of the relatives of the victim. Human beings are not automatons who just allow others to do what they want.

Who said it would be socially advantageous? I didn't, although I know of others who do. For example,

• In a recent book, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion,10 authors Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer claim that rape is "a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage," just like "the leopard's spots and the giraffe's elongated neck." In other words, rape is a biological "adaptation" that allows undesirable males the opportunity to pass on their genes. According to Randy Thornhill, "Every feature of every living thing, including human beings, has an underlying evolutionary background. That's not a debatable matter." According to the anthropology department at the University of California Santa Barbara, "That rape might be an adaptation is a reasonable hypothesis to pursue, and the proper framework is intersexual conflict."11 If rape is just an evolutionary adaptation, then how can it be immoral? (http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... tions.html)

My point still stands however, even if you do insist on commenting for the sake of doing so because you think you have to disagree with me on every turn.

However, this does nothing to show that rape really is wrong...
I see no reason to deny objective moral values do exist given we deep down feel and act as though they do. I am only being consistent with myself when I adopt this belief, for I see actions like rape, torture, and child abuse aren't just socially unacceptable behavior but moral abominations. I believe and live as though some things are really wrong, while other things such as love, equality, and self—sacrifice are really good. Therefore I think I would be extremely dishonest in then turning around a say that such things are really based on one society to the next.

Perhaps you need to research outside of your own experiences.

I have no idea what this means, but I assume it is a shot at "my ignorance" from ignorance so I'm not all too fussed. I prefer proper dialogue rather than insinuations and jibes.

Kurieuo

[BGoodForGoodSake]

First I see you've dodged a whole lot rather than tackled it. I'm not sure why, for I see that you would agree in embracing a lot of the same moral values I do. In any case I only have a couple of remarks back.

Just trying to instigate thought
=)

Moral constructs are absolute within a culture. Germany after the war is now subject to the moral standards of the victor.

If the victor dicates "right" and "wrong," then this fits my point that "right" and "right" is intrinsically meaningless on a relativistic position.

Morality must be absolute within a culture in order to perform its function in society. For the society from which a moral framework originates it cannot be menaingless for the society to function.

What makes rape a violation?

The fact that you are taking something from an individual who belongs to a family or a tribe. She is someone's daughter, someone's mother.

For rape to be a violation one must already believe it to be wrong. Yet, you are advancing a position that right and wrong (including the wrongness of rape) is only a violation for you and others like you, and not necessarily everyone. So to make the declaration that "Rape is a violation of another person," is to be inconsistent since such is a universal statement about the wrongness of rape. I would encourage you to go with this approach though—that rape is a violation for everyone no matter who they are or what they believe.

I do take that approach, however it is possible that the reason it is seen as a violation is because of the implications of such an action on societal stability.

How can it be socially advantageous, it would most likely lead to stigmatism and at worse the offendor is subject to the wrath of the relatives of the victim. Human beings are not automatons who just allow others to do what they want.

Who said it would be socially advantageous? I didn't, although I know of others who do. For example,

• In a recent book, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion,10 authors Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer claim that rape is "a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage," just like "the leopard's spots and the giraffe's elongated neck." In other words, rape is a biological "adaptation" that allows undesirable males the opportunity to pass on their genes. According to Randy Thornhill, "Every feature of every living thing, including human beings, has an underlying evolutionary background. That's not a debatable matter." According to the anthropology department at the University of California Santa Barbara, "That rape might be an adaptation is a reasonable hypothesis to pursue, and the proper framework is intersexual conflict."11 If rape is just an evolutionary adaptation, then how can it be immoral? (http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... tions.html)

My point still stands however, even if you do insist on commenting for the sake of doing so because you think you have to disagree with me on every turn.

Not on every turn only on issues in which I feel a Christian centric viewpoint may blur the picture somewhat. =)
Glad you see my intentions though.
=-)
Evolutionary adaptations can still be seen as immoral. Cheating and lying for example may have their origins as evolutionary advantages, but that doesn't mean that society will not see it as an afront to their moral code. The evolutionary advantage arises from those individuals conducting those acts who are not caught passing these dispicable traits onto the next generation.

Studys on the possible development of certain traits from an evolutionary perspective do not make any comments on the morality of the act. Moral codes function to stabilize societies, they are there to create a social contract between an individual and the society in which he lives.

In other words an Athiest will not say rape is fine because we are biologically inclined to do so.

And a Japanese will not say that morality does not mean anything because it does'nt have the authority of God behind it.

Perhaps you need to research outside of your own experiences.

I have no idea what this means, but I assume it is a shot at "my ignorance" from ignorance so I'm not all too fussed. I prefer proper dialogue rather than insinuations and jibes.Kurieuo

It is not a shot at your ignorance or some sort of jibe, you stated you based your opinions on your own experiences and beliefs.

I am only pointing out that there are many beleif systems out there and cultures with their own moral frameworks. This information could be used as evidence against the opinion of this thread that morality does not exist without God.

[Kurieuo]

Studys on the possible development of certain traits from an evolutionary perspective do not make any comments on the morality of the act. Moral codes function to stabilize societies, they are there to create a social contract between an individual and the society in which he lives.

In other words an Athiest will not say rape is fine because we are biologically inclined to do so.

And a Japanese will not say that morality does not mean anything because it does'nt have the authority of God behind it.

This is better. While I believe God is the grounding of morality as a Christian, all I have been arguing for is that morality needs to be grounded in an objective way to really have meaning. Whether evolution, or social constructs, although they may allow moral rules to be constructed, are enough to ground morality in an objectively meaningful way is something to be debated. Although I am open to considering them as a source of objectivity, even if I think they lack sufficient reason not to toss them aside.

For example, those who admit that objective moral laws must exist, but contend we discover them as part of the universe, or they just happened to evolve... such moral laws need not be obeyed once we find out they were just accidents. Moral laws are in a sense commands on what to do and what not to do, and if they came about by accident and we find out they did, then as we wise up they no longer become something we need to abide by. Personal gain becomes our only imperative.

Perhaps you need to research outside of your own experiences.

I have no idea what this means, but I assume it is a shot at "my ignorance" from ignorance so I'm not all too fussed. I prefer proper dialogue rather than insinuations and jibes.Kurieuo

It is not a shot at your ignorance or some sort of jibe, you stated you based your opinions on your own experiences and beliefs.

I don't believe I stated such a thing. Rather if I am to be consistent with myself (and other people are to be consistent with theirself) then we need to embrace moral values being as true as physical objects. For we certainly act like certain actions are really wrong, while other acts are good and admirable, and that people ought to have certain moral values and be bound by certain moral rules.

This information could be used as evidence against the opinion of this thread that morality does not exist without God.

I'm not sure I agree, since one has to assume God does not exist in order to claim that morality as we understand it can exist without God (which begs the question). However, "my" argument isn't that morality can't exist without God, only that any sensible morality needs an objective foundation whether that is found in God or by something else such as Kant's categorical imperatives and ones duty to follow them. Longer discussion needs to be carried out over whether foundations other than God are sufficient. Many appear to think they are not, and so in resistence to God, embrace moral relativism at the expense of what I think is a meaningful and sensible objective morality.

Kurieuo